China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded

[The Don]

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

[-:Undertaker:-]

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

The best deterrent there is.

[sexpot]

A deterrent due to the threat of death...

Most gun owners wouldn't shoot to kill if they are defending their property.

[Kardan]

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.



A gun will kill somebody when somebody picks one up and fires it. A knife will kill somebody when someone picks one up and plunges it into another human being. Whether killing is the right thing to do entirely depends on the content - that's the real debate, not what weapon was used. A weapon does not commit murder, a person does.



Yes it did. It drove the yanks out of Indochina.

The most powerful military in the world defeated by armed peasants. It can and it did happen.

They weren't 'wiped out' nor did they 'bring down' the military.

[The Don]

Most gun owners wouldn't shoot to kill if they are defending their property.

This is entirely irrelevant and doesn't remove the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill.

[sexpot]

This is entirely irrelevant and doesn't remove the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill.

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

[-:Undertaker:-]

They weren't 'wiped out' nor did they 'bring down' the military.

It brought down the US army in Vietnam.

If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army. Even if not, better to go down fighting for your freedoms than surrender them on your knees like a slave.

Maybe you'd just surrender to government goons and be dragged out of your house with your family like a Jew in 1930s Germany, but i'd rather put up a fight to the death thank you very much. So would the yanks.

If it ever comes to it in America, it'll be the anti-gun liberals cowering behind the 'gun nuts' for protection.

[Kardan]

It brought down the US army in Vietnam.

If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army. Even if not, better to go down fighting for your freedoms than surrender them on your knees like a slave.

Maybe you'd just surrender to government goons and be dragged out of your house with your family like a Jew in 1930s Germany, but i'd rather put up a fight to the death thank you very much. So would the yanks.

It didn't bring down the US army. The US army retreated, it wasn't defeated. Does that mean that the UK was defeated in Iraq?

[The Don]

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

Because a gun is designed to kill, Firing it to scare somebody away isn't why it was designed nor is its purpose.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It didn't bring down the US army. The US army retreated, it wasn't defeated. Does that mean that the UK was defeated in Iraq?

It was defeated. You don't have to destroy every single tank to defeat an army. In the Russian Revolution against the Tsarist regime, the entire Tsarist army wasn't destroyed.... but it was defeated by the reds.

Jesus, am I really having to argue this?